103

AMCAP JMCS |
JOURNAL OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION
STUDIES
Volume 4, Issue 1. January 2024

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10867756

Website home: https://jmcs.amcap.net/website

Submission guidelines: https://jmcs.amcap.net/website/page/submission-guidelines

Date of Acceptance: 03/11/2024

Date of Publication: 03/27/2024

Homosexual Media Exposure and Attitude toward Homosexuals:

Moderating Role of Religion

Author(s):
Areeba Wajhat
Department of Media and Communication,
University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Email: [email protected]

Iqra Saeed- Corresponding author

Department of Media and Communication,
University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Email: [email protected]

Muzammil Saeed
Department of Media and Communication,
University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Email: [email protected]

Abstract
 104

Online streaming platforms over the past 10 years are growing faster than ever in this
new millennium of digitized technological innovation. These platforms have not only
revolutionized the means of media consumption, but they are producing unexpected
effects on the masses as well. For the most part, these platforms have captured the
masses around the globe through enormous entertaining content by distributing
diverse films and television series. This research aims to investigate the impact of
homosexual media on attitude formation and moderating role of religion on the
relationship between content exposure and attitude toward homosexuality. In this
study, a questionnaire was adopted as an instrument to collect the data. A sample of
440 adults and young adults was selected by using convenience sampling technique.
Further, by using concept of ‘Symbolic interactionism’ the study aimed to understand
how media exposed people to its content and how religion moderate between media
exposure and attitude formation. Findings of this research suggested that majority
Pakistani adults and young adults hold a negative attitude towards homosexual
people. Furthermore, moderating displaying evidence on the absence of any
consequential and significantly conditional role of religion among the relationship
between exposure of homosexual content and attitude of adults and young adults.

Keywords: Attitude toward Homosexuality, Online Streaming Platforms, Religion,

Symbolic Interactionism.

Introduction

Media exposure to diverse content is increasing in this age of digital

technology. The concept of a global village could be really experienced now where
mediated content penetration to diverse communities is magnificent. People are
exposed to the content which is still illicit to their community and prohibited to local
media. It is evident that media exposure creates significant effects on critical
thinking and beliefs of the consumers, particularly media has an inspiring power to
influence youngsters (Gehrau et al., 2016). Media helps in shaping an individual’s
views, attitudes, and behaviors, particularly for those who do not have reach to
other sources of information (Espino et al., 2021).
Its crucial role as an entertainment provider helps the individual in shaping
attitude towards a social phenomenon. The reach and exposure to notions that may
have been foreign for certain societies are becoming more common and are being
accepted by the people (Cordeiro et al., 2018). However, we can see the different
acceptance and rejection rate depends upon the phenomena measured on social and
religious grounds. Acceptance and rejection of the content also depends upon the
media message and interaction of the audience to the media because media exposure
constructs mediated reality through comparison and self-production. As
globalization is continuing to flourish, many cultures around the world are
witnessing a paradigm shift. Societies are changing their attitudes to the
phenomenon of homosexuality more aligned with Western positive approach
(Martel et al., 2004). This study aims to investigate:
• The impact of homosexual media exposure on attitudes toward
homosexuality among young adults and adults.
 105

• The moderating effect of religion on the relationship between homosexual

media exposure and the attitude of young adults and adults toward
homosexuality

Literature review

Media Exposure and Homosexuality

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon that is being romanticized by
mainstream media in television programs, films, music videos, and even in content
produced for online streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, Amazon
Prime Video, etc. (Harrington, 2003; Hart, 2004). The age of digitization has extended
the exposure to homosexual media which is emerging as a strong reason for
increasing positive attitude toward homosexuals. The lesbian and gay portrayal of
characters was not a part of media and homosexual characters were absent from the
mainstream media for a very long time. But in the past decade homosexual
characters have paved their way into mainstream media with Ellen Morgan being
the most publicized lesbian character played by Ellen DeGeneres on television
(Bonds-Raacke et al., 2007).
Now, there has been a continuous effort made by the media to make itself a
diverse and inclusive ecosystem. Of the 300 most-viewed programs in 2019
(including broadcast, cable, and streaming), 92% of these shows had diverse
characters including LGBTQ characters. These characters now with the help of the
on-screen experience help the consumers to learn more about sexual minorities
(Nielsen, 2020). Media exposure to homosexuality, whether it be through news or
entertainment media, demonstrated more positive results for acceptance and
willingness to learn about homosexuality and homosexual individuals. It was
concluded that individuals who consumed more news media were more willing to
learn about homosexuality and homosexual individuals, whereas those who
consumed entertainment media were accepting it more (Gonta et al., 2017).
The continual exposure to homosexual media helps in developing an
individual’s attitude towards how they feel about homosexual individuals. It is
identified that if homosexual people are shown in limelight in mainstream media,
then the audiences will grow to have more tolerance towards homosexual people
(Harrington, 2003; Hart, 2004). Media consumers will tend to make relationships
with the characters that are being portrayed on television (Bond & Compton, 2015).
The exposure to homosexual media will have a similar effect on the media consumer
and it can be predicted that the exposure to lesbian and gay characters could help
individuals in identifying and empathizing with homosexual individuals which can
then lead to the formation of positive attitudes towards them (Olson et al., 2006;
Calzo & Ward, 2009). Moreover, heterosexual individuals who do not know
homosexual persons in real life, still willing to advocate for homosexuals just by the
media interaction (Bond & Compton, 2015). This positive attitude then encourages
the youth to have both online and offline contact with homosexuals (Lissitsa &
Kushnirovich, 2020; Feng et al, 2012). Media has become a tool that helps young
individuals to view homosexuality in a positive light and they show more
acceptability towards it (Sharpe, 2002).
 106

Homosexuality and Attitude.

Individual’ attitude toward homosexuality is still obnoxious in many
countries. Most countries consider homosexuality a crime and punish homosexual
people through fines, imprisonment, and a sentence to death (BBC, 2016). Therefore,
the majority people in a society have hostile behavior toward homosexual people
(Poushter & Kent, 2020); Physical attacks, personal rejection by family, and
derogatory jokes show hostile and rejected behavior of society (Reasons & Hughson,
2000). Beliefs and culture associated to the community infuse ideology based on
prejudices and wired behavior towards lesbian and gay people (Ventura et al., 2004).
They are more likely to suffer intolerance, harassment, mockery, and threat of
violence (Subhrajit, 2014), subjected to social exclusion. Even heterosexual males are
reported as not being comfortable with homosexual males due to their highly
effeminate physical appearance attitude and behavior. Another reason behind the
discomfort is a consideration of homosexuality as a sinful act as well (Azrowani et
al., 2012).
Perception about homosexuality appears over time and gradually changes
from noticing homosexuality as criminal behavior to non-criminal behavior, and
homosexuality as pathological changes to non-pathological (Cao et al., 2010:
Landicho et al., 2014). As globalization is continuing to flourish and the world
becoming a global village, many cultures around the world are changing their
attitudes toward homosexual behavior to be more aligned with Western ideologies
(Martel et al., 2004). For many years, scholars have studied the factors that may
influence attitude toward lesbian and gay people. They assumed the stronger gender
identification associated with more negative attitude toward homosexuals among
men than women (Gulevich et al., 2021). The prevalence of such ambiguous attitudes
suggested the individual attitude toward homosexual remained quite conservative
such as women reported being more comfortable working with male homosexuals
than men (Lim, 2002).
Moreover, individuals from different cultures varies in perception toward
homosexual relying gender belief systems prevalent in their cultures (Kyes &
Tumbelaka, 1994) as there is a different relationship among gender identification and
attitude particularly toward gay men and lesbian women (Gulevich et al., 2021).
Gender identification is connected with the acceptance of stereotypes about men and
women. Person with high gender identification is more likely to associate with
stereotypical features to themselves, and have more stereotypical characteristics,
positive or negative attitude towards similar or opposite personality (Bosson &
Michniewicz, 2013), as masculine men have reported gender identification more
positively than feminine men (Glick et al., 2015).
However, gender differences have not been viewed significantly examining
attitude toward homosexuals, but dislike behavior toward lesbian and gay people is
observed in particular people who have strong traditional gender attitudes (Kite &
Whitley, 1998). For similar reasons, individual with greater authoritarianism is likely
to have a negative attitude toward lesbian and gay people (Altemeyer & Altemeyer,
1996). In addition, researchers provided evidence about the relationship between
gender role beliefs and attitudes towards homosexuality that demonstrated a
significant association between attitudes toward homosexual people and generalized
 107

conservative belief systems; in this case they observed an average association

between authoritarianism and negative attitude toward homosexuality (Whitley &
Lee, 2000). Consistency of existing literature support mediating role of social
dominance orientation of individual on gender-related prejudice and attitudes
toward gay and lesbians (Pratto et al., 1997), and gender play role as a mediator for
the cohort differences in tolerance toward gays and lesbians (Cheng et al., 2016).
H1: There is significant association between homosexual media exposure content
and attitude toward homosexuals of adults and young adults.

Moderating Role of Religiosity among Homosexual Media Content and Attitude

Scholars have worked to understand the factors those increase negative
attitude toward homosexuality and could be the determinants of the rejection of
homosexuality (Adamczyk, Pitt, 2009; Adamczyk, 2017; Herek & Capitanio, 1996;
Jackle & Wenzelburger, 2015; Rowatt, et al., 2006). One of the important factors,
religion, has been discovered to be a major predictor of an individual’s attitude
towards homosexuality since long (Larsen et al., 1983), and confirm that religion
plays a central role in defining our attitudes toward different social constructs and
facets of life. Homosexuality is one such concept that is greatly influenced by the
religious orientation and religious commitment of an individual (Allport, 1954). It
has been observed that an individual has two ways of experiencing religion. An
individual who has an extrinsic orientation will practice religion casually and will
selectively shape it or change it completely to fit their needs, whereas on the other
hand an individual who has an intrinsic orientation will find their master motive in
the religion and will live their lives in accordance to it (Allport & Ross, 1967).
Discussing the religious role, sample of Christian students found that intrinsic
orientation positively predicted discrimination toward homosexuals (Herek, 1987).
Further, investigation of the effects of an individual’s religious approach on
heterosexism observed that the individuals who were internalizing their religious
teachings and who were incorporating those teachings into their daily routine were
most likely to be heterosexist (Herek, McLemore, 2013). Similarly, analysis of South
African Muslims involving same-sex marriages discovered that people disparage
homosexuality based on religious doctrines. It was also observed that a community’s
attitude towards homosexuality involves refusal and confidentiality so that they can
have a relationship with the community members (Bonthuys & Erlank, 2012).
However, strong and the weak religious involvement of an individual concerning
negative attitudes toward homosexual individuals among Christians and Muslim
people could be seen (Roggemans et al., 2015).
Individuals who have strong religiosity when compared to those individuals
with less religiosity are less likely to advocate civil rights for homosexual individuals
(Johnson et al., 1997). Public opinions have shown time and time again that there is a
notable association between religiosity and an individual’s negative attitude towards
homosexual individuals (Olson et al., 2006). The empirical findings reported that
clergymen who lead life in a more unidimensional manner consider social issues
through the lens of the holy scriptures and pose negative attitude against
homosexuality (Wagenaar & Bartos, 1977).
 108

H2: There has significant moderating role of religious among the relationship of
homosexual media exposure and attitude among adults and young adults.

Methodology

The cross-sectional survey was conducting through convenience sampling

technique and a total of 440 adult and young adults by using the explanatory design
endeavoring the relationship between homosexual content and attitude toward
homosexuality with moderating effect of religion. The adopted questionnaire was
divided into four parts, fist taken demographic information, media exposure scale
adopted from Maryam (2021) with 19 items, Attitude toward homosexuality with 22
items was adopted from Gonta et al., (2017) and religious commitment inventory
with 10 items form Worthington et al., (2003). All items measured on five-point
Likert scale by analyzed on SPSS Amos.

Results

Survey based quantitative data were collected from a total number of 440
respondents from the universities across the Punjab region. The demographics
results revealed that male respondents represent 38.4%, of the total respondents
where female made 61.4% contribution to the data collection process. It was also
found that the highest percentage of these respondents age-wise existed in 18 – 21
while individuals who are 30 or above are the lowest in the percentage. These
demographic results have been summarized in Table 1 shared below:
Table 1. Demographics
Demographic
Frequency Percent
Items
Gender Male 169 38.4%
Female 270 61.4%
Age 18 - 21 187 42.5%
22 - 25 180 40.9%
26 - 29 58 13.2%
30 – 33 11 2.5%
34 or above 4 0.9%
Education Bachelors 351 79.8%
MS 49 11.1%
M.Phil. 21 4.8%
Ph.D. 19 4.3%
Total (N) 440 100%
Data analysis usually starts by checking the mean, median, standard
deviation. The goal at this step is to define the over-all distributional characteristics
of the data. Low standard deviations depict that the respondents replied nearest to
 109

the mean value. On the contrary, a high standard deviation depicts more spread of
values under the curve
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Media 440 1.00 5.00 3.3209 .94380
Exposure

Attitude 440 2.00 5.00 3.6838 .49577

Religion 440 1.00 5.00 3.2884 .89090

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted by using principal

component analysis for loading estimates of all measured variables. The items of
variable “Media Exposure” found 25.2% total variance, “Attitude” found 52.2% total
variance and Religion found 46.3% of the total variance. Prior to the EFA, the KMO
measures of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test for factor analysis. The KMO of
media exposure construct shows .825, Attitude towards homosexuality found .878. it
means probability of significance of the Bartlett sphere formation verification was
0.00 shows goodness of fit significance values of measured variables. The table 2
shows Kaiser Major Olkin (KMO)

Table 3. Kaiser Mayer Olkin and Bartlett’s Test

KMO Goodness of Fit

Constructs
Index Significance Value
Attitude Towards
.916 .000
Homosexuality

Media Exposure .825 .000

Religion .878 .000

For the CFA, a model that was derived from the EFA was set up and tested.
The SRMR <0.10, RMSEA <0.08, CFI >0.90, TLI >0.90, RFI >0.85 were used to check
the overall fitness of the model. As shown in Table 4, SRMR RMSEA shows
goodness of fit measures. This indicates that the proposed model fits the data
reasonably well.
Table 4: Goodness of Fit Measures
SRMR CFI TLI
(<0.10) RMSEA (<0.08) (>0.90) (>0.90) RFI
LO 90 PCLOSE HI 90
.071 0.71 .000 0.74 .759 .757
.679
 110

Construct reliability value 0.7 above or higher suggests good reliability. The
acceptable range is between 0.6 and 0.7 as shown in Table 5. The variance of media
exposure is 1.86 estimated. The probability of getting a critical ratio as large as 11.908
of media exposure in absolute value is less than 0.001. In other words, the variance
estimates for media exposure is significantly different from zero at the 0.001 level
(two tailed). Similarly the probability of getting critical ratio as 13.70, variance of
attitude and religion are significant different from zero at 0.01 level (two tailed). It
means these statements are approximately correct under assumption.

Table 5:Varience of the all variables

Constructs Estimates S.E. C.R. P

Media .186 .016 11.908 ***

Exposure
Attitude .902 .066 13.703 ***
Religion .718 .056 12.824 ***

Table 6: Coverience of the Variables

Estimate S.E. C.R. P
ZMed_E <--> Inter_M 1.871 .209 8.931 ***
Inter_M <--> ZRel_E 3.419 .253 13.540 ***
ZMed_E <--> ZRel_E .070 .049 1.413 .158
 111

Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

The Path Analysis showing the direct and interaction effect between
contiguous, outcome and regulating variables. The results of the analysis showed the
predicator variable i.e., Media Exposure have negative weak effect on student’s
attitude towards homosexuals. On the contrary, religion has not significant role in
the relationship. It means moderating displaying an evidence on the absence of any
consequential and significantly conditional role of moderator. Henceforward, it was
also statistically revealed that media exposure has weak negative role, nor their
religion is pivotal to sustain the effect of these students on the attitude toward
 112

homosexuals. The results based on the empirical evidence are illustrated in the
Figure 2 and Table 7 shown below:

Figure 2: AMOS Model for Path Analysis Showing Structural Relationship

Table 7: Regression Results of Direct Effects of Model

Estimate S.E. C.R. P
ZATT_H <--- ZMed_E -.083 .157 -.527 ***
ZATT_H <--- ZRel_E .474 .307 1.544 .123
ZATT_H <--- Inter_M .010 .092 .111 ***

Discussion
The present study carried ‘Symbolic Interactionism’ by Herbert Blumer which
stated that an individual’s negative attitude develops toward homosexuals after the
media exposure, and who is employing religion as a framework of meaning will
have a contradicting attitude toward homosexuals and homosexuality in contrast to
an individual who does not apply and use religion as a framework of meaning. So, it
can be stated that religiosity is a system of meaning and is a factor that can shape the
attitude of a person towards homosexuality and homosexuals (Kuptsevych, 2014).
The positive or negative attitude of an individual toward homosexuality and
homosexuals will be shaped by the extent that which the individual uses religious
ideology as a system of meaning (Kuptsevych, 2014).
Drawing upon the Symbolic Interactionism theory, the current research
investigates the moderating effect of religion on relationship between exposure of
homosexual content and attitude of university students. With regards to the
analysis, a total male respondent (38.4%) and (61.4%) were females between majority
age range of 18-21 years old. EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) conducted by using
principal component analysis, measured variables media exposure 25.2%, Religion
46.3% and attitude has reported 52.2% of the total variance. Prior to EFA, KMO
shown in Table 3, goodness of fit significant values of measured variables. Although,
For the CFA, SRMR <0.10, RMSEA <0.08, CFI >0.90, TLI >0.90, RFI >0.85 were used
 113

to check the overall fitness of the model. As shown in Table 4, SRMR, RMSEA shows
goodness of fit measures. This shows that the proposed model fits the data rationally
sound.
The result of the research indicates that there is negative relationship among
media exposure and attitude toward homosexual content. As reported by Detenber
et al., (2007), there is negative and intolerance attitude toward lesbian women and
gay men. Similarly, previous studies found the disgust-sensitive individual reported
negative attitude homosexual (Wang et al., 2019). It is fact that majorities responded
the negative attitude toward homosexuality and it should be acceptable in society
(Lin et al., 2016). Many researches have examined the association between prejudice
behavior and homosexuals (Crawford et al., 2014). A meta-analysis of 17 studies
found the association among the disgust and prejudice toward gay men (Kiss et al.,
2018), thus more negative attitude toward homosexuals (Inber et al., 2009) and likely
to politically and social conservative (Crawford et al., 2014).
AMOS model for path analysis, regression weight showing the weak negative
association between homosexual related media exposure and attitude among
university students. It shown the direct effect of media exposure and attitude by
interaction effect of attitude and religion. The results of the analysis showing the
exogenous or predicator variables i.e., media exposure had weak negative effect on
the criterion variable i.e., attitude towards homosexuals. Similarly, it has also found
the insignificant regulating effect displaying evidence on the absence of any
consequential and significantly conditional role of moderator i.e., Religion. The
results of Wang et al., (2019) suggested moral foundations more likely to intervene
the association between exposure and negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian
people. In this context, Spierings (2018) found individual have strong Muslim
background is a significant predicator of negative attitude toward homosexuality. At
the same time, people from the many of Muslim societies having negative attitude
toward gay men and women (Dudink, 2017). Specifically, the mosque attendance
expected negative attitude toward homosexuality (Glas and Spierings, 2021).
Other studies pointed to varying results, individual’s religious approach on
heterosexism (Herek, 1987), churchgoers with intrinsic and extrinsic orientation
detested homosexual orientation and homosexuals’ individuals. Although, it has
been observed that religiosity and conservative religious orientation is associated
with an individual’s negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Glassner & Owen,
1976). Similarly, individuals who have strong religiosity when compared to those
individuals with less religiosity are less likely to advocate civil rights for homosexual
individuals (Johnson et al., 1997). Moreover, individual who have negative attitude
towards homosexuals were those were strong religious orientation (Hans et al.,
2012).
Henceforward, it was also revealed that homosexual media exposure has
negative role in maximizing the attitude toward homosexuals, nor their religion is
pivotal to sustain the effect of media exposure of these students on attitude towards
homosexuals. Public opinions have shown repeatedly that there is a notable
association between religiosity and an individual’s negative attitude towards
homosexual individuals (Olson et al., 2006). In a study, an individual who follows
his religion strictly and obeys the fundamentals of an individual’s religion was
 114

positively correlated with having a more prejudiced attitude towards homosexual

(McFarland, 1989).

Conclusion

With the increase in homosexual representation in the content, researchers are

being attracted to study the attitudes towards homosexuality and the factors that can
contribute to altering the attitudes of heterosexual individuals toward homosexuals.
A review of growing literature holds negative correlation has remained consistent
over time (Eliason, 1995). The results of this research corroborated the weak negative
correlation between the individual’s media exposure and attitude towards
homosexuals. It has been also observed that there is an absence of any consequential
and significant conditional role of religion among media exposure and individual’s
attitude toward homosexual people. Evidence of the literature suggested that
conservative religious attitude has direct effect on the individuals’ attitude toward
gay men and lesbian women (Hans et al., 2012

Future Recommendation
• To check the media exposure in regard of homosexuality and its impact,
future researcher should be conducted in depth interviews on the
intersection, religion and societal factor.
• Future researcher could explore the impact of religious teaching on
experiences of LGBTQ individual toward homosexuality
• In Pakistan, society is heavily impacted by the religion and homosexuality is
still taboo. Future researchers could check the role of advocating for LGBTQ
rights in Muslim majority specially in Pakistan.
 115

References
Adamczyk, A. (2017). Cross-national public opinion about homosexuality:
Examining attitudes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Adamczyk, A., & Pitt, C. (2009). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of
religion and cultural context. Social Science Research, 38(2), 338-351.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, M. J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443.
Altemeyer, R.A., & Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ambrosino, B. (2016, June 28). I am gay-but I wasn’t born this way. The BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160627-i-am-gay-but-i-wasnt-born-
this-way
Azrowani Ulia, M .R., Azlina, Z., Omar Fauzee, M.S., & Rozita, A.L. (2012).
Perception
towards homosexual athletes in Malaysia. International Proceedings of
Economics
Development & Research, 53(6), 25-30. doi:10.7763/IPEDR
Bond, B. J., & Compton, B. L. (2015). Gay On-Screen: The Relationship Between
Exposure to Gay Characters on Television and Heterosexual Audiences'
Endorsement of Gay Equality. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media.
doi:10.1080/08838151.2015.1093485
Bonds-Raacke, J.M., Cady, E.T., Schlegel, R., Harris, R.J., & Firebaugh, L. (2007).
Remembering Gay/Lesbian Media Characters: Can Ellen and Will Improve
Attitudes Toward Homosexuals? Journal of Homosexuality. 53(3): 19-34.
Bonthuys, E., & Erlank, N. (2012). Modes of (in)tolerance: South African Muslims
and same-sex relationships. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal
for Research, Intervention and Care, 14(3), 269-282.
Bosson, J.K., & Michniewwicz, K.S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of In-
group identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of
Personal and Social Psychology, 105, 425-442.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033126.
Calzo, J. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). Media Exposure and Viewers' Attitudes Toward
Homosexuality: Evidence for Mainstreaming or Resonance? Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 280-299.
Cao, H., Wang, P., & Gao, Y. (2010). A Survey of Chinese University Students’
Perceptions of and Attitudes Towards Homosexuality. Social Behavior and
 116

Personality: An International Journal, 38(6), 721-728.

doi:10.2224/sbp.2010.38.6.721
Cheng, Y.H.A., Wu, F.C.F., & Adamczyk, A. (2016). Changing attitudes toward
homosexuality in Taiwan, 1995-2012. Chinese Sociology Review, 2(2), 73-90.
Cordeiro, P., Mendes A., Mascarenhas, J., & Lameira, S. (2018). Entertainment Media:
Times of Branded Content. In I. R. (IRMA), Digital Marketing and Consumer
Engagement: Concepts, Methodologies, Tool, and Applications, 957-978.
Detenber, B. H., Cenite , M., Ku, M. K., Ong, C. P., Tong, H. Y., & Yeow, M. L. (2007).
Singaporeans' Attitudes Toward Lesbian and Gay Men and Their Tolerence of
Media Portrayals of Homosexuality. International Journal of Public Opionion
Research, 19(3), 367-379.
Eliason M.J. (1995). Attitudes about lesbians and gay men: A review and
implications for social service training. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services,
2(2), 73-90.
Espino, Q. R., Bautista, S. S., Bennagen, J. N., & Tabanao, K. K. (2021). RELIGION
AND SOCIAL TOLERANCE: GENERATION Z'S VIEWS ON EXPOSURE TO
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE MASS MEDIA. Religion Education, 1, 15-24
Feng, Y., Lou, C. Gao, E., Tu, X., Cheng, Y., Emerson, M.R., & Zabin, L.S. (2012).
Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Perception of Homosexuality and Related
Factors in Three Asian Cities. Journal of Adolescents Health, 50(3), 52-60.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.008
Gehrau, V., Brüggemann, T., & Handrup, J. (2016). Media and Occupational
Aspirations: The Effect of Television on Career Aspirations of Adolescents.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 465-483.
Gentry, C.S. (1987). Social distance regarding male and female homosexuals. Journal
of Social Psychology, 127, 199-200.
Glassner, B., & Owen, C. (1976). Variations in attitudes toward homosexuality.
Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 161-176.
Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism,
and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine
women. Social Psychology. 46: 210-217. doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228.
Gonta, G., Hansen, S., Fagin, C., & Fong, J. (2017). Changing Media and Changing
Minds: Media Exposure and. Pepperdine Journal of Communication
Research, V(5).
Gulevich, O., Krivoshchekov, V., & Sorokina, A. (2021). Gender identification and
attitudes toward gay people: Gender and sexuality differences and
similarities. Current Psychology, 1-14.
Hans, J. D., Kersey, M., & Kimberly, C. (2012). Self-Perceived Origins of Attitudes
toward Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 59(1), 4-17.
 117

Harrington, C. L. (2003). Homosexuality on All My Children: Transforming the

Daytime Landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 216-235.
Herek, G.M. (1987). Religious orientation and prejudice: A comparison of racial and
sexual attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(2), 216-235.
Herek, G.M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitude toward lesbians and gay men: correlates
and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). "Some of My Best Friends" Intergroup
Contact, Concealable Stigma, and Heterosexuals' Attitudes toward Gay Men
and Lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.
Herek, G.M., & McLemore, K.A. (2013). Sexual Prejudice. Annual Review of
Psychology. 309-333.
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009a). Conservatives are more easily
disgusted than liberals. Cogn. Emot. 23, 714–725. doi:
10.1080/02699930802110007
Jäckle, S., & Wenzelburger, G. (2015). Religion, religiosity, and the attitudes toward
homosexuality a multilevel analysis of 79 countries. Journal of Homosexuality,
62(2), 207-241.
Johnson, M. E., Berms, C., & Alford-Keating, P. (1997). Personality Correlates of
Homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 34, 57-69.
Kiss, M. J., Morrison, M. A., and Morrison, T. G. (2018). A meta-analytic review of
the association between disgust and prejudice toward gay men. J. Homosex.
doi: 10.1080/00918369.2018.1553349
Kite, M. E., & Whitley Jr., B. E. (1988). Do heterosexual women and men differ in
their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological
analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding
prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, 39-61
Kuptsevych, A. (2014). The Influence Of Religiosity On The Attitudes Towards
Homosexuality Among College Students [Master’s thesis, Minnesota State
University, Mankato]. Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative
Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Retrieved from
https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/303/
Kyes, K. B., & Tumbelaka, L. (1994). Comparison of Indonesian and American
college students’ attitudes toward homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 74(1),
227-237.
Landchico, D.L.C., Aliwalas, M.R.G., Buenaventura, M.J.B., Rodriguez, L.M. (2014).
Religiosity and attitude towards homosexuals among adolescents. Asia Pacific
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(3).
Larsen, K. S., Cate, R., & Reed, M. (1983). Anti-black attitudes, religious orthodoxy,
permissiveness, and sexual information: A Study of the Attitudes of
 118

Heterosexuals toward Homosexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 19 (2),

105-118.
Lim, V.K. (2002). Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of
homosexuality, 43(1), 85-97.
Lin, K., Button, D. M., Su, M., & Chen, S. (2016). Chinese College Students’ Attitudes
toward Homosexuality: Exploring the Effects of Traditional Culture and
Modernizing Factors. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 158-172.
Lissitsa, S., & Kushnirovich, N. (2020). Coevolution between Parasocial Interaction in
Digital Media and Social Contact with LGBT People. Journal of Homosexuality,
1-24.
Martel, L. D., Hawk, S., & Hatfield, E. (2004). Sexual Behavior and Culture. (C. D.
Spielberger, Ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 385-391.
Maryam, H., Alam, R., Naqvi, S.S., & Hussain, R. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on the
Online Media Consumption Habits of Young Pakistani Consumers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350603540_Impact_of_COVID-
19_on_the_Online_Media_Consumption_Habits_of_Young_Pakistani_Consu
mers
McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious Orientations and the Targets of Discrimination.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 8(3), 324-336.
Nielsen. (2020, February 12). Being Seen On Screen: Diverse Representation and
Inclusion on TV. Retrieved from Nielsen:
https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/report/2020/being-seen-on-
screen diverse-representation-and-inclusion-on-tv
Olson, L. R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J. T. (2006). Religion and Public opinion about
same-sex Marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 340-360.
Poushter, J., Kent, N. (2020). The global divide on homosexuality persists. Pew
Research Center, 25.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L.M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in
political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 36, 94-68.
Reasons, C.E., & Hughson, Q. (2000). Violence against gays and lesbians. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 30(1-2), 137-159.
Roggemans, L., Spruyt, B., Broogenbroeck, F. V., & Kepens, G. (2015). Religion and
Negative Attitudes towards Homosexuals: An Analysis of Urban Young
People and Their Attitudes towards Homosexuality. YOUNG, 23(3), 254-276.
Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J.-A., Kelly, J., LaMartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley, A.
(2006). Associations between Religious Personality Dimensions and Implicit
Homosexual Prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(3), 397-406
 119

Sharpe, S. (2002). 'It's just really hard to come to terms with': Young people's views
on homosexuality. Sex Education, 2(3), 263-277
Subhrajit, C. (2014). Problems faced by LGBT people in the mainstream society:
Some recommendations. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and
Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(5), 317-331.
Ventura, L.A., Lambert, E.G., Bryant, M., & Pasupuleti, S. (2004). Differences in
attitudes toward gays and lesbians among criminal justice and non-criminal
justice majors. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 28: 165-180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885870
Wagenaar, T. C., & Bartos, E. P. (1977). Orthodoxy and Attitudes of Clergymen
towards Homosexuality and Abortion. Review of Religious Research, 18(2), 114-
125
Wang, R., Yang, Q., Huang, P., Sai, L., & Gong, Y. (2019). The association between
disgust sensitivity and negative attitudes toward homosexuality: the
mediating role of moral foundations. Frontiers in psychology, 1229.
Whitley, B.E. Jr. (1998). Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation as
independent dimensions of prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender-Role Variables and Attitudes toward Homosexuality.
Sex Roles, 691-721.
Whitley, B.E. Jr., & Lee, S.E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related
constructs to attitude towards homosexuality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30,
144-170.
Worthington, E.L., Wade, N.G., Hight, T.L., Ripley, J.S., McCullough, M.E., Berry,
J.W., & O’Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-10:
Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and
counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84-96.